search_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It only mentions returning matching files and lines, but omits critical behavior like recursion scope, case sensitivity, ignore patterns, performance characteristics, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the use of Turkish and the informal example format could be streamlined. It effectively conveys the core information without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers basic functionality but lacks details on return format, error handling, or expected input validation. Sibling tools are not addressed, reducing completeness for selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool's description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing examples (e.g., 'ör: "*.py"'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare names and types, though it could include constraints or defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for text/regex in project files, with parameter examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_symbol' or 'explain_file', which could cause confusion. The Turkish language description may also hinder understanding for English-speaking agents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage context or when-to-use versus alternatives is provided. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it over other search-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.